Hello all, For several weeks I've been working on a review of the Omega ref. 176.XXX family of watches, which all share the common genotype of being based on the Omega cal.1040-related movements (themselves all related to the Lemania cal.1340 movement). The review is currently halfway-ish finished, and at about 16 slides. I'm posting one slide early for two reasons. First, on another thread debating the merits of the Lemania 5100 movements (http://omegaforums.net/threads/lemania-5100-auto-chrono-question.7608/) I promised a list of all Omega watches holding the cal.1040 derived movements, and this draft slide is an easy way to present that info (plus some). Second, this particular slide acts as a bit of a "backbone" to the rest of the review I'm working on, and so the whole review will certainly benefit from the comments and observations of several folks on this forum regarding this particular slide (you'll notice several bracketed items which are still the subject of investigation or needing confirmation, and on which perhaps several of you have views). Look forward to any additional information/thoughts - particularly those of you who might improve my technical information regarding differences between several of the movements presented.
Good catch, thanks! And I don't think Omega changed anything about the 1045 for the 376.0822, but if I'm mistaken will include.
Wow - great work and great resource - a light should be shone on this fine movement A few to check out - 176.001 was first few months of 1972 link The 1045 was beryllium-copper coated I think The first cal. 1045 was the 012, which was 1974 link There's the Tissot Navigator exclusive Lemania 1343 link (more for interest of course) Just off the top of my head - check though, as I'm prone to errors! Hope it helps. Looking forward to seeing it all! ETA - correct, no change from the normal 1045 for the 376.0822
Thanks, andy_s - some great links and interesting questions raised. One question is the date of the .001. The El Primero and caliber 11 were "introduced" in September and March of 1969, respectively. Lemania introduced the 1340 a year later, sometime in 1970 - I seem to remember it being late 1970, November-ish. If it's true that the .001 wasn't until the first few months of 1972, then what was done with the 1340 for the year or more prior to that? Of the few non-Omega watches to use the 1340 (rather than the later-developed 1341), the examples I've seen seem to be at least after 1972 (if not much later in the 70's). Did the 1340 have no home for so long after its introduction? Did it take Omega that long to be introduced, develop the 1040 around it, and finally get it in a watch? Instead, it seems more reasonable to me that Lemania's development of the 1340 was purpose-driven toward Omega's use, and development of both the 1040 and Omega's 1040-based watches close on the heals of the introduction of the 1340, with the first being the .001. I'm certainly not disagreeing outright with the suggestion of 1972 for the .001, but 1971 is instead purhaps supported by my reasoning above and also some other things. Some materials reported as being from Omega, dated as of 1971, describe the .001 and its replacement by the 007 (see below pic). Also, the 007 replaced the .001 and the 007 appears first in 1972 (see below pic), which would certainly crowd the narrative if they were both introduced the same year. Finally, I think that people so often confused the distinction between the .001 and the 007 that suggestions that the "001 is from 1972" may be based on that confusion. In any event, this is just the sort of info that I hoped this thread may turn up. Thanks again! RCB
A very thorough movement genealogy. Thanks for compiling this. I clearly see where my Speedy 125 movt coming from.
bumping in the hopes of more feedback - particularly from anyone with a finer-grained view of the mechanical differences between the movements. not necessarily looking for valuations of the relative superiority of the movements, but just technical information - though prerogatives are always welcom.
Not really an update, but an addition of sorts, the Breguet XXI also used a modified L1340 movement http://forum.atgvintagewatches.com/showthread.php?t=2241 The patent for the bearings of the 1040/1340 were deposed in late DEC-70, but, I have my doubts about the 11-71 catalogue picture - it is not like the 001 or indeed any other 176, the chrono hands and 9 o'clock subdial are different to what was produced, perhaps a dealers 'preview' mock-up of the 'prototype', in which case perhaps the 001 was only a short time on the market and may not have appeared 'fully manufactured until early '72. The strike-through replacement by 007 though seems to say that it was already in production, it's just strange how the handset is completely incorrect. It (the picture) does not have the internal tachy ring, which I always thought was the correct, original .001 configuration, but perhaps in tune with the 'prototype' or 'nascent' times, perhaps a few different variations were tried. To add to the interest/confusion - http://www.watchlounge.com/wbb3/wl/...1-seltener-seamaster-chrono-176-001-prototyp/ ...! Good luck picking this apart - it is interesting that Omegas first automatic chronograph calibre is surrounded by these whisps of fog...in my mind at least!
This is another one that might be worth adding along with its cousins... We saw it in Amsterdam on the 29th, one of Omega's most special pieces and the first of a set of several. Its a Calibre 1045 Co-Axial, due to the height of the 1045 movement, George Daniels used it as the test bed for his new escapement, and the first watches to use it were Speedmaster automatics in several cases all featuring a speicial Co-Axial Calibre 1045. This is the actual watch, in the background is the number 000/999 first ever production made Co-Axial DeVille Limited Edition, both watches were the personal property of Daniels and are now in Omega's hands.
thanks for the info on the Breguet! An interesting descendent. Your points are well taken on the dealer sheet with respect to dating. As for the form of the 001, though, it was indeed produced without the inner tachy ring, and instead an external bezel, just as the watch you sent a link to at the end of the page. There are numerous examples of this exact configuration, each with case backs reading only "176.001." Later, examples pop up with the inner tachy ring and with case backs that, like other transitional models, strike through the 001 number and below contain the new .007 reference number. In other words, the 001 is a tachy-less model, there is a transitional model (based purely on the case back markings, but otherwise just the same as a 007 proper), and then the familiar 007 thereafter. Such a great mystery! And great info, thanks!
This is my 176.001 from 1971/2, or whenever! I've owned it for 30 years and have serviced it a couple of times. The 1040 goes on forever with a touch of oil and check. It keeps to +/- 2 secs a day which can be corrected with overnight laying flat. I spoke to a long standing Omega exec some years ago who told me that a couple of hundred of these were made, but the line was quickly 'upgraded' with the inner tacky early on to fit in with modern trends. I like both the .001 and .007 models and any other with the 1040. I think the .001 hasn't dated as quickly as the others. The dials were blue or silver. The inner 24 hr disk should be grey or dark blue/black. They tried a few colours with the hands. These were very much experimental in design so different colour set ups should be expected. This model of Omega is real, did exist, wasn't a prototype, but did get replaced very quickly. This model did not have an outer bezel, as has been suggested. Most of the pics on the web are of the same watch. Given the strength of the 1040, I would guess that a good few .001s still exist.
Resurrecting an old thread because I'm curious as to whether the OP ever published his full report, and also because I just noticed that one cal. 1045 is missing: the FIFA watch ref. ST 11.003. I'd love to see that chart updated with the suggestions from the comments in this thread, as I've lately become mildly obsessed with cal. 1040.
FYI, after 3 years I finally posted the full review on this over at: https://omegaforums.net/threads/176-007-and-cal-1040-family-review.32325/